Matt Whitlock [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-12 📝 Original message:I keep seeing (on ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-12
📝 Original message:I keep seeing (on /r/bitcoin) mentions of a 24-hour or 48-hour (varying accounts) interval at which miners clear their mempools. Is this a matter of local policy or something Bitcoin Core does by design?
On Saturday, 11 July 2015, at 5:29 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not
> CPFP.
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <dkbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people
> > would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay
> > in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed
> > enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it
> > out.
> >
> > If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum
> > threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better
> > position to battle this spam flood.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are
> >> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for
> >> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol
> >> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol
> >> message to signify that they should be evaluated together.
📝 Original message:I keep seeing (on /r/bitcoin) mentions of a 24-hour or 48-hour (varying accounts) interval at which miners clear their mempools. Is this a matter of local policy or something Bitcoin Core does by design?
On Saturday, 11 July 2015, at 5:29 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> It sounds like you are seeking transaction expiration from the mempool, not
> CPFP.
>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Dan Bryant <dkbryant at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a compromise will be somewhere in the middle. I think most people
> > would be OK with TXs that don't have enough fees for P2P transfer to stay
> > in deadmans land. Most people are stuck in a situation where they payed
> > enough to get it into (and keep it in) the pool, but not enough to get it
> > out.
> >
> > If we could get CPFP that only worked on TXs that met the minimum
> > threshold for peer propagation, then I think we would be in much better
> > position to battle this spam flood.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Micha Bailey <michabailey at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Right. The issue (AIUI) is that, right now, even though transactions are
> >> evaluated for inclusion as a group with CPFP, they're not yet evaluated for
> >> relaying as a unit, nor can they be, because the current p2p protocol
> >> doesn't have a way to send multiple transactions in a single protocol
> >> message to signify that they should be evaluated together.